Replies to This Discussion

I am always wary of the term Anthropogenic and the premise that emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary or the only cause of climate change, that leads to disruptions in the Earth system, such as sea-level rise and increasing frequency of extreme weather events.

Not that I do not agree we are responsible for many environmental challenges that need to be resolved, but the CO2 rhetoric and the proposed models of change that have been touted over the past 40 years or so have not come to fruition in any way or manner, didn't Al Gore tell us snow would be a thing of the past by now and there would be ice-free oceans.

It also set my spider senses tingling when I read statements like " hard policy interventions include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, trade reconfiguration, and other economic and structural measures." and " Too often policy remains at the soft end of the policy ladder "

As well as some of the suggestions mentioned in the Nuffield Ladder of Policy Intervention

Eliminate choice

Channel actions only to the desired end and isolate inappropriate actions

Apply taxes or charges

Develop multicriteria interventions, building on existing developments such as carbon and sugar taxation, and scoping others such as marketing controls, carbon-calorie connections

These could seem to be a bit draconian if let loose with the unbridled passion that institutions have when wanting power over aspects of a society they want to milk under the guise of responsible governance.

Its quite a wordy document and will take a more comprehension reading, but I do like the findings and approach that they give guidance on healthy diets but provide sufficient scope for many global dietary patterns (eg, vegetarian and pescatarian) to be considered.

This scope is captured by use of broad food groups and intake ranges that allow for various dietary preferences to be considered, witha conclusion that findings suggest that a shift towards a dietary pattern emphasizing whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes without necessarily becoming a strict vegan, will be beneficial.

Good to know that our gardeners read this type of info from the Rockefeller Foundation. To be truthful I am not as educated as some. I scanned over the papers and find it a bit deep, had to get the dictionary out again.

Gayle, I will have a look into the link that you gave, regarding online courses, as you are never too old to learn.

I think the science is a tad over-hyped...but it is a handy resource. And I definitely do not support its opposition to the consumption meat, dairy and egg proteins on sustainability or nutritional grounds...

As I am not the average size Australian, at least I am eating those foods recommended. A little less meat wouldn't hurt me, most of my starches have been cut out, and I don't consume legumes for now.

There are other outside influences that affect our planet though, such as the strength of the sun and it's activity and influence on our weather. Also our moon, has an influence on the ground and water.

Cattle for food and sugar cane paddocks and wheat fields, take up some land and we are letting our food bowls become housing projects. In Australia we are not short of land. There is so much bitumen and concrete and black roofs and lawn.

Tut Tut! I shouldn't complain about the lawn. Maybe if we leave the things we have in the ground alone (such as coal, gas etc) and survive the weather the best we can, modify our eating to the most nutrient dense foods, we will do better. That's it for me, this stuff worries me a bit. We are a lucky couple of people, we have healthcare and our house is ours and we garden as we choose, what more could you want in life other than some good gardening friends.